Ben-Dror Yemini was born in Tel-Aviv, Israel in 1954. He studied Humanities and History in Tel Aviv University, and later on he studies Law. After his university studies, he was appointed advisor to the Israeli Minister of Immigration Absorption and then became the spokesman of the Ministry. In 1984, he began his career as a journalist and essayist. He worked as a lawyer and was a partner in a law firm. He has worked for the daily newspaper Maariv, and in Spring 2014 began writing for the daily Yedioth Ahronoth. The author of "The Industry of Lies."

Op-ed: As an organization comprised of human rights activists, Amnesty should be expected to uphold different norms, rather than automatically accept false Palestinian claims. With such a record, how can its reports be taken seriously?

By Ben-Dror Yemini
Ynet News
December 2, 2015

Last week, Amnesty released a statement condemning Israel's disproportionate response to the knife offensive. Apparently, between the wild run with the knife until it reaches the victim's neck, we must implement a procedure of politely asking the stabber to stop the harassment.

In the same statement. Amnesty accused Israel of the murder of Saad Muhammad Youssef al-Atrash. The claim that Israel kills for its own pleasure, or that soldiers plant knives at the scene of the incident, is being voiced here and there by Palestinians and members of the delusional left. It's a shame that Amnesty is crawling in that direction. It's a lie. We'll get back to that soon.

The Amnesty organization should have dignity. It publishes reports on violations of human rights around the world. Occasionally, it should be mentioned, it has dared to issue blatant publications against Hamas. This should have pointed to decency, but this organization has a clear political agenda which supports the views of the Palestinian Rejectionist Front.

For example, Amnesty believes that "the Palestinians have the right to return into Israel." I once presented Amnesty with a question: Do you hold a similar opinion on other refugees from the 1940s? We are talking about tens of millions. I received no answer.

Contrary to Amnesty's claim, international law's position is very clear. The issue was raised in the European Court of Human Rights. The ruling was unequivocal: There is no right of return.

As for al-Atrash, the political agenda has made the organization go mad. We have heard claims about "knife planting" as part of the Palestinian incitement broadcasts. The world is unfazed, and Israel is unfazed - and it's a shame. Because it turns out that everything Hamas says in the first act is repeated by the Palestinian Authority in the second act, and is muttered by some of the rights organizations in the third act.

According to Amnesty's version, al-Atrash was an innocent young man who simply tried to pull out a certificate. How does Amnesty know? It is relying on the testimony of a Palestinian eyewitness. That's what she said. It's holy. Sort of like NBC's correspondent in Israel who said during a live broadcast from Jerusalem that the stabber did not have a knife. The anchor in the studio immediately interrupted him to present footage showing the stabber waving a knife. He was refuted on live TV.

The problem is that Amnesty is doing the same misleading as part of an official statement. The facts, of course, are different. Al-Atrash went out to commit an attack. He clarified that himself. Several days before the incident, he left a picture on his Facebook page in which he is seen holding a bleeding knife. He left no room for doubt. There is no mention of that in Amnesty's statement. It's the unbearable lightness in which the organization adopts any dubious Palestinian testimony.

The problem is Israel as well. Although we are talking about an organization that supports the right of return, which means Israel's destruction, Amnesty is entitled to receives six National Service volunteers. What exactly do they do there? Issue incitement statements? Spread false claims against IDF soldiers in order to turn them into criminals in every country they visit?

It sometimes seems like international bodies make delusional, anti-Israel decisions because of the majority of dark countries controlling them. That's the case of the United Nations' Human Rights Council. But Amnesty doesn’t have such a majority.

We are talking about an organization comprised of human rights activists. We should expect it to uphold different norms, rather than an automatic acceptance of the Palestinian preaching - both on the right of return issue and on libels about the killing of innocent Palestinians. Amnesty has made some serious claims too, but such a record makes it somewhat difficult to take its reports seriously.

Amnesty offered the following response: "The Facebook picture does not change the circumstances of al-Atrash's death. According to our assessment, which is based on a testimony, he did not pose an immediate life-endangering threat when he was shot repeatedly. In any event. Even if he was shot because soldiers believed he posed a lethal threat, he should not have been left to bleed for 40 minutes."